author kidder, louise h.; and others rights conscic ...document resume ed 232 067 cg 016 761 author...

DOCUMENT RESUME

ED 232 067 CG 016 761

AUTHOR Kidder, Louise H.; And OthersTITLE Rights Conscic*asness: Victimization Prevention

through Personal Defense and AssertivenessTraining.

PUB DATE Aug 82NOTE 26p.; Paper presented at the Annual Convention of the

American Psychological Association (90th, Washington,DC, August 23-27, 1982).

PUB TYPE Reports Research/Technical (143) --Speeches/Conference Papers (150)

EDRS PRICE MF01/PCO2 Plus Postage.DESCRIPTORS Adults; *Assertiveness; *Females; Feminism;

*Individual Power; Interpersonal Relationship;Psychological Characteristics; Rape; *Self Concept;Sexual Harassment; *Victims of Crime

IDENTIFIERS *Anger; *Self Defense

ABSTRACTAnger and consciousness of rights may play a

significant role in victimization prevention. In an attempt toexamine how personal defense and assertiveness training would alterwomen's feelings of fear, helplessness, and anger, as well as theirjudgments of what rights they have, three studies were conducted. Thefirst study, a participant observation study of two personal defehseclasses for women, met twice a week for 14 weeks and had anenrollment of 37. Observation indicated that learning to redefine asexual assault and feeling angry rather than afraid were difficultfor the women. The second study focused on the effects of personaldefense training on perceived rights and resistance. At the beginningand end of a 14 week program, students in personal defense trainingclasses (N=33) answered questionnaires designed to measure perceivedrights and the likelihood of enacting those rights. Data analysis ofboth pre- and post-tests indicated a correlation between anger andthe likelihood of resisting assault. The third study focused onassertiveness training. Post-test scores indicated an increasedawareness of rights. The results of all three studies suggest thatwomen can be taught to prevent victimization by responding withanger, rather than fear, to an infringement of their rights. (AG)

************************************************************************ Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made ** from the original document. *

***********************************************************************

September, 1982

N. Rights Consciousness:

(:) Victimization Prevention through

CNJa

pr; Personal Defense and Assertiveness Training

CM Louise H. Kidder1/CNJ

LAJ Joanne Boell

Marilyn Mbyer

Temple University

1/ The authors wish to acknowledge Dr. Patricia Wish and Ms. Loretta Raider of

the Institute of Awareness in Philadelphia and Ms. Carol Parlett of Haverford

for providng access to data samples.

Portions of this research were presented at the American Psychological

Association meetings, Washington, D.C., August 1982

r4

qD Running head: Victimization prevention

r4 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

o NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF EOUCATIONEOUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION

CENTER IERICI

C.) 1, This document has been reproduced asreceived from the person or organizationonginating it

Minor changes have teen made to improvereproduction quality

Points of view or opinions stated in this document do not necessarily represent official NIE

position Or pohcy

"PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE THISMAT RIAL HAS BEEN GRANTED BY

ser

TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCESINFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)."

2------...-....-...-..-.........r..111111111111111111111111111111111111M111111011111111111111.

Ri.ghts Consciousness :

Victimization Prevention through Personal Eefense and Assertiveness

Training

Louise H. Kidder, Joanne Well, Marilyn Mbyer

Temple Lhiversity

In three studies we examine the role of anger and rights consciousness in

victimization prevention. In the first, the senior author was a participant

observer in personal defense classes for women. In addition to self-defense

tedhniques, the students learned to expand their notion of What constitut...s a

sexual assault and to feel angry rather than afnaid. dhow how the

redefinition of danger and experience of anger %ere prdblematic because both run

counter to women's socialization. In the second study we evaluated the effects

of personal defense training on women's sense of their rights, their reports of

feeling angry, afrid, and helpless, and their reported likelihood of resisting

an assault. The second author was also a participant oboerver in two classes

with different instructors and teadhing methods. Cne emphasized studimes

"right to their own body;" the other did not. Students in the former class

felt they had greater rights and would be more likely to resist an assault than

did students in the Latter class. In the third study we measured the effects of

assertiveness training on women's perceptions of their rights and their reported

likelihood of exercisng those rights and found significant increases. Both

personal defense and assertiveness training raised the level of rights

consciousness. Both teadh students to experience anger and decrease feelings of

fear. The results suggest that women can be taught to prevent victimization by

responding with anger instead of fear to an infringement on their rights.

'Kidder Victimization Prevention Page 2

Rights Consciousness and Victimization Prevention

In talking about how women can learn to prevent their own victimization,

we do not mean to imply that if they become victimized it is their own fault.

Instead, ue distinguish between responsibility for a problem and responsibility

for its solution (cf Brickman et al., 1982; Kidder & Cetn, 1979). It is

possible for people to assume responsibility for preventing themselves from

being victimized without assuming responsibility for the causes of victimization

(Janoff-BUIman, 1982). We need not blame victims for being raped, sexually

harrassed, or imposed upon in other ways to show that they can learn to reduce

the likelihood that those things will happen to them. The ideal solution would

be to alter the cultural assumptions that give rise to the high incidence of

rape or the social and economic arrangements that locate women in powerless

positions (et Sanday, 1981; Marsh, 1982). Until that day arrives, however,

women (and men) can learn techniques of victimization prevention that may not

change the world but will change their behaviors and chances of being hurt.

In the studies that follow we examine how personal defense and

assertiveness training alter women's feelings of fear, helplessness, and anger

as well as their judgments of %tat rights they have and haw likely they are to

enact those rights. Fear is the most common reaction to victimization (et

Baumer, 1978) and it also exaccerbates the victimization. Victims of rapes,

muggings, and other personal assaults report that their fears and nightmares

persist, as a kind of secondary victimization (e.g., Kilpatrick, Resick &

Veronen, 1981; Riger & Gordon, 1981). Fear exaccerbates the victimization in

another way too--by making it more likely that some assaults will be completed

rather than merely attempted. Women %ho had been raped said their immediate

reaction to the impending asault was fear; women who avoided potential rapes

said their immediate reactions were suspicion and anger at the prospect of being

KidderVictimization Prevention Page 3

assaulted ((ueens Bench Founaatioll, 1976). Responding with anger rather than

fear may, therefore, be an important element in avoiding victimization.

Experiencing and expressing anger areparticularly difficult for women.

Stereotypes of men and women portray men as aggressive and women as not

aggressive (Broverman et al., 1972). There is a grain of truth to the

stereotype--research shows consistent differences between men and women in

physical aggression (Frieze, Parsons, Johnson, Ruble & Zellman, 1978). Research

also shows, however, that women are as aggressive as men when an experimenter

tells them their behaviors are private (Mallick & WCandless, 1966) or rewards

them for aggressive behavior (Bandura, Ross & Ross, 1961). Some authors have

said that women and girls show more "indirect" aggression than men and boys

(Feshbach, 1969; Feshbach & Sones, 1971; Ruble, 1978). There are several forms

of explanation for why women are less likely to express anger or direct

aggression. One form of explanation is social and developmental: girls and

women are almost universally taught to be nurturant and obedient (Barry, Bacon &

Child, 1957), taught to heal rather than to hurt, arld to obey rather than to

argue or fight. Another form of explanation is structural: women who are

economically dependent risk their security when they express anger (cf Chesler,

1972). Even abused wives may find it safer to stay with an abusive husband than

to strike back or strike out on their own, and consequently blame themselves

rather than their husbands for the abuse (cf Walker, ; Frieze, 1978). .

Personal defense and assertiveness trainers use different techniques bdi

similar messages to teach their students to avoid being victimized. Personal

defense training provides an array of techniques, ranging from very preliminary

prevention efforts like becoming aware of the environment and identifying

potential dangers to ultimate efforts like wounding an attacker who is close

enough to strike. Assertiveness training is a less explicit form of

victimization prevention. Students who take the training do not speak of

Kidder Wctimization Prevention Page 4

themselves as victims. The language of the course does not include "victim" and

"Ioffender". Nonetheless, students in the course are taught to prevent

victimization and to redefine their problems--from personal deficits to a denial

of rights. They learn to recognize their rights, including the right to say

WC report three studies. The first is a participant observation study

of personal defense training. The second is an evaluation of the effects of

personal defense training on women's sense of their rights, their reports of

feeling afraid, angry, and helpless, and their reported likelihood of resisting

an assault. The third is a study of the effects of assertiveness training on

women's perceptions of their rights.

Study 1: Participant Observation ih Personal Defense Traning

The senior author was a participant observer in classes in personal

defense for women. She attended two classes which met twice a week for 14 weeks

in a College of Physical Education. Thirty-seven women were enolled in the

classes.

"no".

The students learned to defend themselves if attacked and learned how to

define danger, to expand their notion of what constitutes a sexual assault, and

to feel angry rather than afraid. The instructors periodically referred to the

latter as "psychological" changes that would occur.

These "psychological" lessons were more difficult to teach than the

physical techniques. Learning to redefine a sexual assault and feeling angry

rather than afraid run counter to women's socialization. Women are more likely

to feel frightened rather than angry when attacked, and they require a

supportive other person to say things like, "1 wouldn't let him get away with

that" before they retaliate or fight back (Richardson, Bernstein, & Taylor,

1979).

The instructors repeatedly told the students they must get mad if

Kidder Victimization Prevention Page 5

someone "tampers with your body against your will." Initially it was difficult

for the students to feel or act angry during the classroom exercises. They took

turns playing the roles of attacker and victim, but the attackers were gentle

with their victims and victims did not want to hurt their attackers. They took

snall pokes at one another, pushed with minimal effort, and did not provoke

anger.

There were only a few times when the students fe1t and expressed anger4

in their defensive maneuvers. Om was a lesson in h:tting imaginary knees,

groins, throats, and noses. The target was a paddul wall in a gymnasium.

During this exercise cne instructor commented, "I saw somebody getting mean back

there. That's good. You've got to get to feel mean, like you're really going

to get somebody." Both instructors repeatedly told the students they must learn

to get angry, "feel mean...feel like I'm going to get him, or he's not going to

get away with that."

It was difficult for the instructors to teach the students to act or

feel angry about the prospect of "someone tampering with your body against your

will" and it was difficult for the students to know what constitutes "tampering"

and when something is "against your The instructors said they wanted to:

"change your mind set about th:s. Sometimes a woman

might say, 'I'd rather let him do it than try to poke

his eyes out'... Well, that's your choice. "

The latter phrase was a regular refrain. The instructors said they -

b

could teach the students a variety -f techniques to use in a variety of

situations. Whether or not the woman chose to use any of the techniques, and

which ones shc chose, would be her decision.

Why is it difficult for students to know what constitutes "tampering"

and when something is "against your will"? The instructor posed a case:

"Suppose your boss or someone pats you on the back or shoulder and


says,'Hi, Nhryann' all the time," does that constitute tampering and is it

against the woman's will? It is a gesture which women usually do not

reciprocate--it is often a one-sided gesture between men and women, particularly

when the man is a "boss" as in the example (et LaFrance & Mayo, 1978; Hanley,

1977). The instructor went on to say, "...you can discourage that, and you

might find that no one touches you at work any more." One entire class was

devoted to "discouraging techniques" for use in social settings when women did

not want to be touched or held. That class was punctuated by more laughter than

other sessions, with students expressing embarrassment over doing anything about

such events. When they learned to dislodge someone's hand from their shoulders,

breasts, waists, or arms, they said "I can't imagine doing that at a party!" and

"Can't you just see yourself doing that?"

The politics of touch (Henley, 1977) makes asymmetrical touching seem

normal and makes its difficult for women to use "discouraging techniques." If

they use those techniques they may incur costs, like being accused of making a

false accusation. Sone class discussion illustrates this:

Instructor: What do you think if smmeone like a brother-in-law comes up and

fools around?

Student 11: I had a situation like that. My husband's brother came up and he

was getting friendly. And I thought instead of telling my husband,

who's his brother, I'd tell my brother and let him take care of it;.

because I didn't want to get the other family involved.

Student 12: I don't think I'd say anyting. Because how could I be sure that

was what he intended. I think as soon as you start to say

something about it, he would deny it.. He would say you're

paranoid or something like that.

Instructor: So you wouldn't do anything?


Student #2: I would just try to avoid him. I don't think there's much else you

can do. You can't accuse him of rape if he didn't ,do anything.

And talking about his intentions is very difficult.

The instructor recognized the difficulty and said, "You can't be paranoid and

dodge everything." Hie added, "sometimes husbands meet wives th !. way, someone

you might marry, at a club or party, but you have to judge."

There is a difference between being sexually harrassed and being raped,

but conceptually the two are linked, because in both instances women fear what

might hapPen if they say "no." They anticipate a variety of consequences,

ranging from social to physical repercussions. Some think they would be

unpopular and never have a date again. Others have a histor) of seeing women,

frequently their mothers, abused for saying "no" (Ensminger, 1977). Repeated

victims often accept dates with people they neither care for nor trust, and

subsequently feel responsible for having agreed to something in advance because

they accepted the date in the first place. They feel they have an implicit

contract and must submit to their partners' wishes. This is particularly true

fot young victims (Ensminger, 1977).

Though rape and sexual harrassment lie at opposite ends of a continuum,

they are both incidents occurring against a woman's will. Within this framework

we will consider the reasons women fail to say "no" or fail to recognize some

'acts as "tampering" with their bodies against their will. The arrangement

between the sexes provides that the man take the initiative and the woman has

the option to say "yes" or "no" to what is sometimes an ambiguous overture

(Goffman, 1977). If she says "no" to an overture designed to initiate something

she did not want, she may avoid rape or harrassment. If she says "no" to an

overture that was intended to be consensual, she risks being accused of making

a false accusation and losing the opportunity to develop a relationship. If she

says "yes" to each of these kinds of overtures, she risks being raped or

Kidder VIctimization Prevention Page 8

harrassed in the first instance but she gains the opportunity to form a

relationship in the second. This is the problem in decision-making that the

instructors :epeatedly made the students aware of, but they were unable to help

in the decision-making other than to SPY "it's your choice".

The instructors read descriptions of stranger rapes, some of which began

quite innocently, with a knock on the door or a casual question on the street.

Since the instructors and students agreed it was unwise to be "paranoid and

4

dodge everything", it seemed reasonable to answer a knock at the door or

question on the street. If, however, the question about the time of day leads

to questions about which bus the person is taking, where she gets off, where she

lives, and so on, it is unclear when the listener should stop answering and

define the conversation as going too far. How does she distinguish between a

friendly inquiry and a potential assault? The students were told that some

rapes begin with seemingly innocent inquiries. They could not be told

unequivocaly, however, at what point to stop a conversation or when not to

answer a door knock. Instead, they could only be forewarned to be cautious--to

be willing to say "no" sooner than they might otherwise.

Omce a physical assault by a stranger begins, the victim is no longer in

dotibt about t!Ie stranger's good will. The victim then must decide whether it is

better to resist or submit. Interviews with victims of rapes and attempted

rapes show that women whose first reactions were fear, who thought they would be

killed if they resisted, were raped. Those whose first reactions were anger

were more successful in preventing rapes ((ueens Bench Founclation, 1978; Bart,

1978). Women who complete personal defense training ieel more capable of

defending themselves (Cohn, Kidder & Harvey, 1978). We do not know whether they

react more with anger than with fear and whether they have a greater sense of

their right to say "no." Study II examines the effects of personal defense

training on women's reported anger and fear and on their sense of their rights


Study 2: Effects of Personal Defense Trainig on Perceived Rights and

to resist.

Resistance

Methods: We developed scales to measure perceived rights and likelihood

of enacting those rights as well as feelings of anger, fear, and helplessness.

The scales were based on 20 items like the following:4

1) The man sitting next to me on the bus is pressing his leg against

mine

2) Amen grabs me from behind and puts a knife to my throat

3) At a formal dinner party, the man next to me rests his hand on mine

as we talk

Following each statement the students were asked to indicate on S-point scales:

1) Do you have the right to resist?

2) Would you resist?

3) Would you feel angry?

4) Would you feel afraid?

5) Would you feel helpless?

Thirty-three students in personal defense training classes answered the

questionnaires at the beginning and end of a 14 week session. In addition to

administering the scales, the second author was a participant observer in the

personal defense classes. On the basis of her observations (and on the basis og

data analyses in which we noticed differences between lessons) we report some

data analyses for the combined classes and report others separately.

Quantitative Analyses

1. Correlations of Anger with Resistance, Fear, and Helplessness

One of the lessons taught in the personal defense classes is that an

effective defense requires that the student feel angry, as we noted in Study 1.

1 1

Kidder Victimization Ptevention Page 10

We examined the.correlations of students' reports of anger with their reports of

whether they would resist and haw frightened and helpless they would feel.

Table 1 shows the pre-test and post-test correlations.

-----Insert Table 1 here

On both the pre-and post-tests the Table shows a correlation between

anger and likelihood of resisting. On the pre-test feeling angryl also

correlated with feeling afraid and helpless. On the post-test the relationship

disappeared. The students were taught to respond with anger rather than fear

and they subsequently learned that the two are inconsistent. The poetive

correlations were not replaced by negative correlations, but the covariation

disappeared.

2. Correlations of Perceived Ri hts and Resistance with Fear and

pelplessness

The students were taught not only that they should become angry but also

thaL fear could be paralyzing. Therefore we examined the relationship between

their perceived rights and resistance with their feelings of fear and

heiplessness.

Insert Table 2 here

Table 2 shows that feeling afraid and helpless were initially

uncorrelated with rights and resistance and subsequently became negatively

correlated. The students learned that anger is consistent with resistance and

fear and helplessness are inconsistent. These correlates were obtained across

both sets of instructors.

3. Ccyparison of Means Before and After Personal Defense

IEPAPATIE

We performed repeated measures t-tests on the students' reported levels

of anger, fear, helplessness, perceived rights, and readiness to resist. Across

all 33 students there were no significant differences. Therefore we separated

1 2


the data by instructor and performed separate aualyses for those students taught

by a pair of male and female instructors and those taught by a third instructor,

a male alone. We have designated the first the X-Y class and the second the Z

class.

Repeated measures t-tests showed that sl.,dents taught by the X-Y team

felt significantly less afraid and helpless and significantly more likely to

resist by the end of the course (See Table 3)

Insert Thble 3 here

By contr,Ist, there were no significant changes in the other class on any !

these variables. The only significant change in the other class was a decrease

in the students' perceived rights. They felt they had less right to resist an

assault at the end of the class than they had at the beginning (t = 2.13; N =

13; p = .054).

4. Comparison of Means Between Classes

We compared the pre-test and post-test :cores of the groups taught by

inStructors X-Y and instructor Z. There were no significant pre-test

differences on any measures. The post-test measures of perceived rights and

likelihood of resisting were significantly different, however, as seen in Table

4.

Insert Thble 4 here

The X-Y class reported feeling they had a greater right and would be more likely.

to resist than the Z class. We turned to the field notes gathered by the second

author as a participant observer to explain the decreased sense of rights and

resistance in one class and increased rights and resistance in the other.

Qualitative Analyses of Field Notes

Students in both classes learned the same physical techniques of


personal defense--how to fall, how to position themselves once on the ground to

place a well aimed kick, how to break free from various holds, and how to injure

an attacker. The differences in their instruction appeared in the

"psychological" lessons, the instructors' efforts to "change attitudes,"

referred to in Study 1.

In the class taught4by instructor Z students asked how far they should

go in injuring an attacker. After they had learned how to hurt or maim, they

were concerned about Mother and when they could legitimately use those

techniques. In response to a student's question, the instructor cautioned:

"If somebody says give me your roney, you don't poke his eyes

out--it might be a kid. The first thing is to get away."

When other students asked how to tell whether an attacker is or is not intending

to harm them and whether they should inflict harm in turn, the instructor again

warned them:

"It's not always clear--it's hard to judge. You know there

have been cases where a guy sues another guy for injuries

received, and won, even though the first guy was mugging the

second. You have to think of this.... It's his word against

yours."

After a class in which students learned to poke out an assailant's eyes, several

students asked instructor Z whether he intended for them actually to poke out an

eye or simply push enough to hurt. He replied:

"Nb, no. If his eyes are open, you just have to poke, that

really bothers people. If his eyes are closed though--and you

do automatically close your eyes when something is coming--

then, if you want to stop him I guess you do have to really

4


poke, and that's pretty serious."

He grimaced as he said this.

In addition to giving cautionary messages about inflicting injury that

might be out of proportion to a potential assault, the instructor did not use

the language of "rights". The participant observation field notes contain no

discussion of rights. The classes contained instruction primarily in physical4

techniques.

By; contrast, instructors X-Y did talk about rights and said the

students' belief in their rights was a precondition for resisting and being

willing to fight.

"We teach the girls that they have a right to their own'bódy

and one one else does--no one. And that issue of hurting

someone, well, we are always on that. The girls have to think

about that and make up their minds. They can do it. Mill

they do it? We spent a lot of time on that. You can't really

expect them to decide to hurt someone unless you convince them

that they have rights."

Students taught by instructors X-Y did report feeling significantly more likely

to resist. Students taught by instructor Z felt they had significantly less

right to resist. Though the classes did not differ on either of these measures

on the pre-test, they differed significantly on both by the time of the post-*

test. The wbtle differences in the"psychological" lessons produced significant

differences at the end of 14 weeks.


Study 3: Assertiveness Training: Rights to Refuse and to Make a Request

Methods

Four instructors of assertiveness training administered questionnaires

at the beginning and end of their courses which lasted from 6 to 8 weeks. We

have complete data from 23 students. They ranged in age from early 20's to mid

50's and their occupations were diversf,, including college students,4

professionals, office workers, and non-employed housewives.

The questionnaire contained a 15 item Refusal scale measuring whether

students felt they had the right to refuse a request and whether they were

likely to refuse and a 15 item Request scale measuring whether they felt they

had the right to make a request and their likelihood of making it. Sample items

on the Refusal scale are as follows:

1) A boss asks me to work overtime when it is inconvenient

for me

2) A,neighbor asks me to babysit for her child when I want to

do something else

3) A person at work asks me to organize the office party

Sample items on the Request scale are as follows:

1) Tell a person I live with I feel I am doing more than my

share of the chores

2) Ask a friend for a ride that is out of my friend's way

3) Ask someone to stop interrupting me

For each item the students were asked to indicate on a 3-point scale whether

they felt they had a right to refuse the request or make the request and on a 5-

point scale what the likelihood was that they would refuse or make the request.

The scales each tapped a variety of situations to make them applicable to the


diverse sairple of students.

Results

We ccepared the pre-and post-test scores on the four scale totals:

Right to Refuse, Would Refuse, Right to Request, Would Request. We had no

participant observation from the various classes and had no reasons for

expecting different results among them, so we ccmputed t-tests for repeated

measures on the entire sample of 23 students. All four scales showed

significant changes from the pre-to the post-test. (See Table 5).

Insert Table S here

Students were asked to comment on the post-test whether their sense of

rights and responsibilities had changed. Their answers indicate that they had

become aware of having rights but they did not think they would always exercise

them in'spite of kncwing they had the right:

"I feel and know I have the right to refuse, ask and am

responsible. At least in my head and lots of times in my gut.

But doing it is something else because I was brought up with

the implied'belief that I had little rights...."

"I see more clearly now that I have the right to say "roe" and

in many cases I have started to say it because to not assert

myself now is very "uncomfortable".

"/ feel much stronger, more able to assert my opinion. I'm

much clearer now about my rights and I find it much easier to

say things like "I've changed my mind" or "I need moie time to

make a decision"."

1 7

Kidder Victimizaticn Prevention Page 16

Comments like these uere made by students in all of the classes. Learning to

recognize and exercise rights is a central lesson in assertiveness training (viz

the book entitled, Your Perfect Right).

Conclusions

Anger was a correlate of feeling likely to resist an assault among the

students in personal defense training. We had no corresponding measures of

anger among students in assertiveness training, though learning to express anger

assertively is taught in those courses. By teaching students they have a right

to say "no" assertiveness trainers try to enable them to refuse requests without

feeing guilty. Feeling guilty for refusing a request may be analogous to

feeling afraid to resist an assault. In both cases the potential victim fears

that the consequences of her refUsal may be worse than the consequences of

submitting.

Both personal defense and assertiveness training raise the level of

rights consciousness. They may both work by turning fear or resentment into

anger. They do not necessarily make the students more angry but rather enable

them to express their anger directly.

Students in assertiveness training learn to say "Nb" rather than comply

resentfully. Students in personal defense training learn to define a variety of

assualts and to say "Nb" with force. In both instances they are taught to

respond with anger instead of fear to an infringement on their rights.

1 3


Thble 1

Correlations of Anger with Resistance, Fear and Helplessness

Pre-Test Correlations Post-Test Correlations

Would Resist4

Would Feel Afraid .47** NS

Would Feel. Helpless 44** NS

**p .01

N 32


Table 2

Pretest and Post-test Correlations of Rights and Resistance with

Fear and Helplessness

Right to4Resist Would Resist

Pre-Test Post-Test Pre-Test Post-Test

Feel Afraid NS -.39* NS

Feel Helpless NS -.70**

* p .05

** p . .01

N = 32

2u


Table 3

Pre-Test and Pbst-Test Means for Students in the X-Y Class

Fre-Test Post-Test t Vhlue

Feel Afraid 51.17 40.22 3.47**

Feel Hhlpiess 45.06 27.72 6.01**

Would Resist 76.78 84.61 -4.87**

** p .01

N-18


liable 4

Comparison of Post-Test Means between

the Personal Defense Classes

X-4 Class Z Class t Value

Right to Resista 98.38 85.87, 2.66*

Would Resistb 84.22 71.07 3.18**

* p = .05

** p = .01

aN = 33

bN = 32

,


Table 5

Comparison of Pre-Test and Post-Test Scores for Four Measures of

Rights in Assertiveness 1Yaining Classes

,..

Pre-Test4

Ant-Test t Value

Right to Refuse 42.5 43.8 2.06*

Would Refuie 50.6 56.5 3.74**

Right to Request 41.8 43.1 2.01*

Would Request 50.4 56.5 3.43**

Kidder, Boell & Moyer

REFERENCES

Alberti, R.E. & Emmons, M.L. Your perfect right. San Luis Obispo: Impact,

1970,1974.

Bandura, A., Ross, D. & Ross, S.A. Imitation of film-mediated aggression through

imitation of aggressive models. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology,

1961, 63(3), 575-582.

Barry, H., III, Bacon, M.K. & Child, Ia. A cross-matural survey of some sex

differences in socialization. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology,

1957, 55, 327-332.

Bart, P. B. Avoiding rape: A comparative study. Paper presented at the meetings

of the International Sociological Association, Upsala, Sweden, 1978.

Baumer, T.L. Research on fear of crime in the United States. Victimology: An

International Journal, 1978, 3, 253-264.

Brickman, P., Rabinowitz, V.C., Karuza, J., Coates, D., Cohn, E. & Kidder, L.H.

Models of helping and coping. American ayslalogat, 1982, 37(4), 368-384

Chesler, P. Women and madness. New York: Avon Books, 1972.

Cohn, E.S., Klader, L.H. & Harvey, J.C. Crime prevention vs. victimization

prevention: The Psychology of two different reactions. Victimology: An

International Journal, 1978, 3(3-4), 285-296.

Ensminger, J, Notes from presentation on sexual assault of adolescents. Presented

at conference on Rape: Picking up the Pieces. Sponsor4d by the Marriage

Council of Philadelphia, 1977.

Feshbach, N.D. Sex differences in children's modes of aggresstve responses

toward outsiders. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 1969, 15, 249-258.

Feshbach, N.D. & Sones, G. Sex differences in adolescent reactions toward newcomers.

Developmental Psychology, 1971, 4(3), 381-386.

e

Frieze, I.H. Self perceptions of the battered woman. Paper presented at the Annual

meeting of the Association for Women in Psychology, Pittsburgh, PA., March 1978.

Frieze, I.H., Parsons, J.E., Johnson, P.B., Ruble, D.N. & Zellman, G.L. Women and

flex roles: A social psychological perspective. New York: W.W. Norton, 1978.

Goffman, E. The arrangement between sexes. Theory and Society, 1977, 4, 301-331.

Henley, N. Body politics: Power, sex, and nonverbal communication. Englewood

Cliffs, N.J.: Pren 'le-Hall, 1977.

Janoff-Bulman, R. Discusanes comments at Symposium, Beyond Victimization, presented3

at the American Psychological Association Meeting, Washington, D.C., August 1982.

Kidder, L.H..& Cohn, E.S. Public views of crime and crime prevention. In Frieze, I.H.,

Bat-Tal, b. t Carroll, J.S. (Eds.) New Approaches to Social Problems, San Francisco:

Jossey-Bass, 1979.

Kilpatrick, D.G., Resnick, P.A. & Veronen, L.J. Effects of a rape experience: A

longitudinal study. Journal of Social Issues, 1981, 37(4), 105-122.

LaFrance, M. & Mayo, C. Moving bodies: Nonverbal communication in social relation-

ships. Monterey, Calif.: Brooks/Cole, 1978.

Leventhal, D.G., Shemberg, K.M. & Van Schoelandt, S.K. Effects of sex-role adjustment

upon the expression of aggression. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,

1968, 8(4), 393-396.

Mallick, S.K. & McCandless, B.R. A study of catharsis of aggression. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 1966, 4(6), 591-196.

Marsh, J.D. Public issues and private problems: Women and drug use. Journal of

Social Issues, 1982, 38(2), 153-166.

Oetzel, R.M. Annotated bibliography, in E.E. Maccoby (Ed.), The development of sex

differences. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1966.

Riger, S. & Gordon, M.T. The fear of rape: A study in social control. journal of

Social Issues, 1981, 37(4), 71-92.

2 5

Ruble, D. Sex differences in personality and abilities. Chapter 4 in Frieze, I.B

Parsons, J.E., Johnson, P.B., Ruble, D.N. & Zellman, G.L. (Eds.) Women and Sex

Roles. New York: W.W. Norton, 1978.

Sanday, P.R. The socio-cultural context of rape: A cross-cultural study. Journal

of Social Issues) 1981, 37(4), 5-27.

ft

author kidder, louise h.; and others rights conscic ...document resume ed 232 067 cg 016 761 author...

Documents